Santiago-Malavet v. Noreen Wiscovitch Rentas
3:12-cv-01414
D.P.R.Jul 16, 2012Background
- Appellant Jesus Santiago-Malavet appeals a bankruptcy ruling denying his homestead exemption.
- Bankruptcy Court denied the debtor’s motion for a homestead exemption; trustee objected to exemptions.
- District Court reviews bankruptcy decisions for abuse of discretion, clear error, and de novo law review.
- Appellee is Noreen Wiscovitch Rentas, the bankruptcy trustee.
- Appellant did not oppose the Trustee’s motion initially; the district court affirmance denied remand to oppose the motion.
- Order AFFIRMED on July 16, 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the bankruptcy denial of the homestead exemption was erroneous | Santiago-Malavet argues the denial was improper | Rentas contends the denial was correct under the record | Denied; court affirmed the denial. |
| What standard governs appellate review of bankruptcy rulings | Review should focus on the facts as argued by the appellant | Review applies clearly erroneous, de novo, and possible abuse of discretion standards | Standards appropriately applied as stated. |
| Whether remand is necessary to allow opposition to the Trustee’s motion | Remand should be allowed so appellant can oppose | No remand required; appellant had opportunity to object earlier | No remand needed; affirmance stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- TI Fed. Credit Union v. DelBonis, 72 F.3d 921 (1st Cir. 1995) (clear error deference and de novo review in bankruptcy appeals)
- In re Savage Indus., Inc., 43 F.3d 714 (1st Cir. 1994) (standard of review for bankruptcy matters clarified)
- In re Warner, 247 B.R. 24 (1st Cir. BAP 2000) (abuse of discretion principles in bankruptcy decisions)
- LeBlanc v. Salem (In re Mailman Steam Carpet Cleaning Corp.), 212 F.3d 632 (1st Cir. 2000) (abuse-of-discretion and factual-finding review)